Haven't read every post, so I apologize if I missed where it's been pointed out but have these protests actually claimed to be "grassroots" in nature? I mean, they're union protests and while unions are "of the workers" they haven't (at least in my lifetime) ever been considered a grassroots movement.

Maybe they were back in the 19th century, but certainly not now.

I only ask because in order to be astroturfing the group involved has to claim to be grassroots.

2/24/2011 11:14:54 AM

I'm surprised how many people on page 1 took the claims of Talking Points Memo and the Washington Examiner at face value. Though TPA keeps its tone neutral, the WE piece is a diatribe slathered in bitterness.

If you read the TPA article, you'll find that supporters of Walker are being bused in by conservative organizer American Majority. The closest thing to astroturfing I could find is the following statement on AM's facebook page.

"We need concerned Wisconsin citizens to show up at noon on Saturday, February 19th to voice our support for Gov. Walker and our conservative legislators! Tell your friends--let's set a turn out record! Remember to be peaceful and bring those signs!"

2/24/2011 12:06:01 PM

timswar, you're pretty much correct. No union-organized protest would claim itself to be grassroots, but conservatives don't understand the meaning of words so they think "astroturf" just means "a mean thing to call a group of protesters"

2/24/2011 2:54:46 PM

http://www.theonion.com/articles/governor-walker-should-be-flogged-for-his-inabilit,19309/

2/24/2011 8:10:40 PM

is this the wisconsin collective bargaining thread?

ok, i'll just put this right here then

2/25/2011 9:16:17 PM

Did the union actually agree to the compensation cuts? There seems to be conflicting reports about that.

2/26/2011 9:57:03 AM

^^ sure, it's a "basic right." As long as you aren't a government worker. There are plenty of instances of "basic rights" being suspended for government workers. Just ask anyone in the military how much "free speech" they have. sorry, but you don't have a right to elect your boss and then let him give you all kinds of goodies on the pubic dime. period.

2/26/2011 6:19:20 PM

"astroturf"? was this thread suppose to sound like it was made in 2008?

2/26/2011 10:48:27 PM

^^ that’s a hilariously flawed interpretation of what “collective bargaining” is about (aka “strawman”).

You seem to be suggesting that gov. run entities are unable to mis-treat their employees, which we all know isn’t true.

2/27/2011 1:53:41 AM

so, you deny that unions fund candidates that are ultimately sympathetic to their demands? really? wow...

And sure gov. run entities are able to mis-treat their employees. I just haven't seen it, and it's a great thing that we have this thing called "the media" to handle such cases when it does.

2/27/2011 6:03:44 PM

so for page two:

does anyone still think this is an example of astroturfing? or have the responses been sufficient to show how it is not?

2/27/2011 7:06:40 PM

^^Undoubtedly. Public sector unions are a hugely influential voting block that should not even exist.

2/27/2011 7:35:21 PM

Of course they shouldn't exist. People involved in Government are the LAST people who should have a say in how government is run.

We should be leaving that to PAC-funding billionaires. They're the only ones who can really be trusted to act for the good of the people.

2/27/2011 11:22:55 PM

so, you don't see a problem with the people who are supposed to be negotiating on behalf of the people being beholden to those with whom they are negotiating? You see no conflict of interest there, eh?

2/28/2011 12:20:03 PM

you don't see a problem with this, tim?

Quote :

"A camera focuses on an official of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), California's largest public employees' union, sitting in a legislative chamber and speaking into a microphone. "We helped to get you into office, and we got a good memory," she says to the elected officials outside the shot. "Come November, if you don't back our program, we'll get you out of office.""

http://washingtonexaminer.com/node/520117

2/28/2011 1:06:00 PM

Without collective bargaining rights, government workers can be tossed out arbitrarily every time a new politician enters office. There was a whole era of public workers being compelled to essentially act as political operatives by having their jobs threatened. That's why public sector unions exist, precisely so corrupt politicians can't unilaterally manipulate public servants to do their bidding. Otherwise, every time the governorship changed hands, teachers might have to switch between textbooks for Evolution and Intelligent Design or risk losing their jobs. For being so concerned about government power, conservatives seem oddly enthusiastic about giving government executives limitless power over public servants. I'm sure they'd be singing a different tune if Obama was dissolving collective bargaining for federal employees so he could force them to canvas for Democratic candidates under threat of losing their jobs.


[Edited on March 1, 2011 at 12:55 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2011 12:51:47 PM

Quote :

"For being so concerned about government power, conservatives seem oddly enthusiastic about giving government executives limitless power over public servants. I'm sure they'd be singing a different tune if Obama was dissolving collective bargaining for federal employees so he could force them to canvas for Democratic candidates under threat of losing their jobs."

Couldn't you just as easily solve that problem with targeted laws?

3/1/2011 2:01:14 PM

Quote :

"Couldn't you just as easily solve that problem with targeted laws?"

Probably not easily, as you'd have to not only define the exact roles and duties of each public service position and also define what is and is not a politically motivated activity. We're talking more gray area than the interstate highway system.

3/1/2011 3:54:51 PM

I didn't realize until today that a bunch of wisconsin democratic legislators had left the state to avoid voting on the legislation that's being protested. Whether you think they should vote yay or nay I think you have to admit that running away and hiding in Chicago is pretty spineless.

3/1/2011 4:07:04 PM

The bureaucracy should be kept separate from the legislature and the executives. They should never be beholden to anything other than the laws. We vote on way, way too many positions in government as it is. Things like state comptroller or soil and water commissioner should have incredibly minimal political scope. They should be merit based and not subject to the whims of the masses.

In summary, democracy is silly.

3/1/2011 4:14:38 PM

Quote :

"I didn't realize until today that a bunch of wisconsin democratic legislators had left the state to avoid voting on the legislation that's being protested. Whether you think they should vote yay or nay I think you have to admit that running away and hiding in Chicago is pretty spineless."

Why do you think quorum laws exist?

3/1/2011 4:16:05 PM

Quote :

"The bureaucracy should be kept separate from the legislature and the executives. They should never be beholden to anything other than the laws. We vote on way, way too many positions in government as it is. Things like state comptroller or soil and water commissioner should have incredibly minimal political scope. They should be merit based and not subject to the whims of the masses. In summary, democracy is silly."

Oh, you're literally a fascist. Forget I even addressed you.

3/1/2011 4:17:24 PM

Well, it's supposed to prevent the tyranny of the minority, but in modern times with superior transportation technology and full time legislators it actually enables a tyranny of the minority.

Quoroms are supposed to prevent 5 or 6 guys getting together while everyone else is out of town and passing a bunch of laws. In this case it has allowed dereliction of duty and a de facto veto by the minority. It's entirely undemocratic.

3/1/2011 4:23:03 PM

^^Explain please.

Teachers and other government employees would still be beholden to the laws issued forth by the government, but there is no reason to politicize basic government tasks like road building, public education, etc. Insulating basic services from the ever changing whims of the public is hardly a fascist ideal. Direct or indirect election of every position in government is a bad, bad idea.

3/1/2011 4:26:32 PM

Quote :

"Well, it's supposed to prevent the tyranny of the minority, but in modern times with superior transportation technology and full time legislators it actually enables a tyranny of the minority. Quoroms are supposed to prevent 5 or 6 guys getting together while everyone else is out of town and passing a bunch of laws. In this case it has allowed dereliction of duty and a de facto veto by the minority. It's entirely undemocratic."

Total nonsense. Quorums exist to prevent tyranny by the majority more than anything. If it weren't for quorum rules, the minority party, upon becoming the minority, would simply give up on attending until the next election. It ensures a base level of cooperation between parties. They have long been busted as means to protest a runaway majority. Abraham Lincoln, for example, famously jumped out of a fucking window to break a quorum and prevent a vote.

Quote :

"Insulating basic services from the ever changing whims of the public is hardly a fascist ideal. Direct or indirect election of every position in government is a bad, bad idea."

The basic appeal of Fascism is that Democracy is generally a failure and that the masses are incapable of managing government exactly because of their "ever-changing whims", and that government should be handled by as few people as possible so that it has a clear and steady direction.

[Edited on March 1, 2011 at 4:41 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2011 4:40:09 PM

I disagree with you about the reasons behind quorom laws. The threat of shotgun legislation was very real early in American history, requiring a minimum number of people was more about making sure that a small group could not quickly pass legislation in the absence of the opposition, not as a way for the opposition to deny the will of the people's duly elected majority.

Quoroms exist to make sure that the democratic process operates, not as a way to intentionally shut it down. That's what filibustering is for.

[Edited on March 1, 2011 at 4:47 PM. Reason : asdfs]

3/1/2011 4:45:29 PM

Winning a majority does not mean you get everything you want. If that were the case, and elections were a winner-takes-all situation, people would just vote for a State Dictator instead of this messy Congress setup. Do you really think that a 51% majority should have the right to pass each and every law they think of? Why would minority legislators even show up if they didn't have tools like quorum to guarantee that they'd be entitled to some basic level of compromise and consideration?

Like seriously, I can't see how you're arguing anything aside from "Quorum is bad because it prevents mob rule/tyranny of the majority which is what democracy is all about, also democracy is bad because it lets people vote on too many things"

[Edited on March 1, 2011 at 4:53 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2011 4:52:28 PM

^^I'm less a fascist and more an opponent of the spoils system and politicized ABC boards (as an example). Legislators should be voted for, dog catchers should not. Dog catching is far too important a service.

3/1/2011 4:52:55 PM

So who determines the dog-catcher then?

3/1/2011 4:53:50 PM

I suppose that would be true if parties always voted directly down party lines all the time, in which case they really shouldn't bother showing up. Fortunately we have other checks and balances to prevent the tyranny of the majority, like executive vetos, judicial review, and (in most cases) a bicameral legislature.

Look, I don't like the idea that a majority can simply push through every piece of legislation it wants, I'm a huge fan of divided government, the situation in Washington right now is pretty ideal. What is not ok, and what should not be ok is for the minority to twist a rule that was designed to prevent shotgun legislation to shut down the political process, but breaking a quorom to prevent democracy from working is a terrible idea, and not why they exist.

Frankly, if you really want good legislation, start requiring a supermajority of say... 70% to pass any legislation. At least then either everyone would get their riders attached or it would actually be something palatable to a large segment of the population.

3/1/2011 5:03:01 PM

Quote :

" what should not be ok is for the minority to twist a rule that was designed to prevent shotgun legislation to shut down the political process, but breaking a quorom to prevent democracy from working is a terrible idea, and not why they exist."

Says who? You're pretty impressively confident in your interpretation of the intent behind quorum, so much so that you're stating it as fact.

Quote :

"Frankly, if you really want good legislation, start requiring a supermajority of say... 70% to pass any legislation. At least then either everyone would get their riders attached or it would actually be something palatable to a large segment of the population."

This is exactly what the practical function of a quorum is.


[Edited on March 1, 2011 at 5:10 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2011 5:07:33 PM

Ideally someone well qualified to determine who would and would not make a good dog catcher as opposed to you or I.

Maybe you set up the heads of the various government service sectors through legislative appointment with a fixed term limit that does not run concurrent to legislative terms, say a 5 year appointment in a state where elections are held every 4. You then allow those people to run the dog catching service and operate it within the budget allotted to them.

There are ways to do it that will prevent or at least minimize shit like our superbly corrupt ABC boards.

3/1/2011 5:10:43 PM

aaronburro: Do I like it? No. But unless we have genuine top-to-bottom public funding for election campaigns then we have to put up with it, especially in the wake of the Citizen's United decision since public unions have become the only counterbalance left to oligarchical control of our politics.

3/1/2011 5:12:25 PM

I'll admit that's interesting, having separate public heads of service divisions. I've wondered what it'd be like if we replaced the Presidency with a council of 12 or so elected officials, similar to the present cabinet, and they would rotate yearly in serving as the largely-ceremonial "Head of State". Each would have a specific set of powers (War, Agriculture, Economic Policy, Social Policy) and a budget. Maybe even having rolling yearly elections where 2 or 3 of them are up for re-election, so that people don't just vote straight party ticket. It would force some interesting and experimental combinations.

[Edited on March 1, 2011 at 5:17 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2011 5:15:12 PM

Let me ask you this then, why is it that in most cases, a quorum is 50%? Only in rare cases does it require more than half the assembly present. It's written into our own US constitution that way. The only exception comes in the case that there is a tie in the electoral colleges election of the president.

Most states have copied the US constitution and instituted it in their own legislatures with certain exceptions.

In fact, the only reason it is effective in the Wisconsin case is because this is a spending bill, which in WI requires a 2/3 present for a vote. If this were any other type of legislation, it already would have been passed regardless of the protests of the minority. If the minority refuses to come back, I'm sure the majority party will figure out a way to make this a non-spending bill and pass it any way.

[Edited on March 1, 2011 at 5:19 PM. Reason : asdfs]

[Edited on March 1, 2011 at 5:21 PM. Reason : adfas]

3/1/2011 5:19:00 PM

Quote :

"Do I like it? No. But unless we have genuine top-to-bottom public funding for election campaigns then we have to put up with it, especially in the wake of the Citizen's United decision since public unions have become the only counterbalance left to oligarchical control of our politics."

I used to hate the idea of publicly funded elections, but I'm starting to warm to the idea of them. I worry about how we would prevent massive abuse in the system... what's to stop me from running for president even though I'm in no way qualified just to get the campaign money? How do we legislate that, how do we determine who and who is not a legitimate candidate? What about ballot access? Without private campaign funding what will prevent ballots from becoming even more closed than they already are?

I dislike the amount of control corporations, unions, and PACs have over candidates at present, but I'm terrified of the idea that our current political parties could control the purse strings of elections and thereby shut out rival points of view.

3/1/2011 5:31:33 PM

It seems that most non-50% quorums are reserved for big-fucking-deal issues, like changing the constitution, electing a President, or passing spending in this case. This might be to prevent a petty minority from walking out of literally every presiding they don't agree with, but give them the option in cases where a 51% majority is making a huge decision that affects everyone.

I think it especially makes sense in the case of spending, since money is a key operative variable in our political process. A slim majority of 51% might use spending to empower certain services that benefit their constituents, making it easier for them to campaign. The GOP loves to target unions because they're the Democrats largest donor. If you let a slim majority control spending, there's a risk that they'll use that power to further entrench themselves.

3/1/2011 5:32:24 PM

Typically, under public funding, you would require a certain number of signatures to get funding, that way you don't get every hobo and his uncle on the ballot. So even with public financing, it takes a degree of influence and cash for pre-campaign campaigning.

Quote :

"I dislike the amount of control corporations, unions, and PACs have over candidates at present, but I'm terrified of the idea that our current political parties could control the purse strings of elections and thereby shut out rival points of view."

This is essentially what the GOP is trying to do in attacking unions in WI. Don't get me wrong, I don't think unions should control who gets to run and who doesn't, but the fact is that the GOP counterbalances that with their high corporate sponsorship (which they repay with tax cuts and subsidies). The principle here is that spending influences political viability, and requiring a quorum on spending guarantees that a slim majority doesn't exploit their majority status to position themselves for bigger wins the following election. Even if you don't like the unions or the Dems, there's a principle at stake that tries to prevent ruling party entrenchment.

[Edited on March 1, 2011 at 5:36 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2011 5:35:54 PM

Quote :

"This might be to prevent a petty minority from walking out of literally every presiding they don't agree with, but give them the option in cases where a 51% majority is making a huge decision that affects everyone. "

That's what I've been saying!

The thing is, rather than a walk out being allowed to shut down the business of legislating, I'd rather they required a supermajority of the total voting body for important shit like they already do for amending the constitution.

In the modern world, there is very little reason for quorums to exist. We have nearly instant communication, reliable transportation, and full time legislators. They need to show up and do their god damned jobs.

I'm hopeful that the childish behavior of these 14 guys doesn't become the norm.

3/1/2011 5:39:38 PM

^^Ehhh, nowadays corporations support both sides pretty evenly, in fact they generally hedge their bets pretty hard and then throw more money behind the predicted winner towards the end to curry favor. Look at some of the donations Obama received in this last election cycle.

Public sector unions are a special case, I don't think they should exist.

I couldn't care less what private sector unions want to do. I'm all for collective bargaining being allowed, I just don't agree with the concept of closed shops.

All in all I'd rather we just elected a Leviathan every 10 years.

3/1/2011 5:44:56 PM

._.

3/2/2011 3:16:15 AM

Moya-Tylan 2012

3/2/2011 3:38:10 AM

Talyn*

3/2/2011 5:16:41 AM

The last thing we need is another warmonger that close to the Presidency.

3/2/2011 1:49:55 PM

3/2/2011 4:59:27 PM

Quote :

"Without collective bargaining rights, government workers can be tossed out arbitrarily every time a new politician enters office. There was a whole era of public workers being compelled to essentially act as political operatives by having their jobs threatened. That's why public sector unions exist, precisely so corrupt politicians can't unilaterally manipulate public servants to do their bidding."

I was not aware that teachers in NC were being fired every time the governorship changed hands. Man, all those right-to-work states must have a hard time keeping up, since their public workforce gets fired so often!

what an absurd claim, dude.

Quote :

"Do I like it? No. But unless we have genuine top-to-bottom public funding for election campaigns then we have to put up with it, especially in the wake of the Citizen's United decision since public unions have become the only counterbalance left to oligarchical control of our politics."

You do realize that until that decision, there was no counter to the power unions held in elections, right? Funny that you now say that unions are the "answer," when for so long they were the problem. Maybe we could reduce the scope of government so that it wouldn't make sense for a corporation to try and buy elections... did you ever think of that? naaaaaaaah

3/2/2011 8:29:10 PM

Quote :

"You do realize that until that decision, there was no counter to the power unions held in elections, right?"

There was, known as "corporate America" and even then it had the upper hand.

3/2/2011 8:41:42 PM

only, not really, as they couldn't give money to campaigns. nice try

3/2/2011 8:58:46 PM